dcuniverseonlinefandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:DC Universe Online Wiki
Scope Let's keep it to events surrounding the game. We already have a DC Database to cover movie and comic events. I would presume that DC will provide information on each character and location when the game starts up, from there we can add info of ingame events such as quests involving that character and such. Using the Batman page as an example, there is way to much info here that might not even be related to his game appearance. For now we can cover origin stories and place the concept artworks that the official site is providing. Netherith 07:01, August 12, 2010 (UTC) Buncha Pages Just thought I'd add a bunch of pages to the Wikia. Its not very fancy nor stylish, but it has the raw data for each. I'll throw up more when I get that far in the content. If others could further elaborate my additions, that'd be fantastic. Check your recent edits some mature genius is editing pages to include "gay" and "penis" and other such items. :No problem. We'll keep banning his ass until he can no longer enter this wiki and then his crap will be overwritten in the influx of information to come. Netherith 08:37, January 13, 2011 (UTC) Missions(quests) category Is it possible to get a Missions(quests) section added to the front page? Even if just inthe useful links section. Missing Nature I just noticed that in the drop down menu for powers "Nature" is not listed. The Silver Hood 14:37, January 16, 2011 (UTC) --- Also under Locations "Watch Tower" is missing The Silver Hood 14:39, January 16, 2011 (UTC) True beginners guide Ive been searching for awhile for a true free guide for beginners that helps explain DCUO better than the tutorials provided. The section could/should also include elaborations on the mechanics of the game, for instance, I had to search for the longest time to figure out what abilities meant by damage role and healing role. Though it is something that is more addressed at the appropriate level of 10, it was still frusturating to me to level and choose abilities that i did not fully comprehend. I would be glad to contribute to such a section, though my experiences with writing on wiki is slim. 20:53, January 18, 2011 (UTC) Bad Pages I think you're doing a great thing with this Wiki but you need to stay on top of the jerks. There are number of offensive categories and pages that have been added today. SolarCenturion 21:24, January 18, 2011 (UTC) :Unfortunately I seem to be the only admin now and I have yet to find others with the required knowledge and devotion to "knight" into admin/modship. Netherith 00:44, January 19, 2011 (UTC) Links in power drop down leading to blank pages Most of the powers linked in the Powers dropdown (excluding Ice, Mental and Iconic) lead to pages titled "List of X Powers" which are currently blank. the actual lists of powers are available on pages titled after the powers themselves (see: Ice, Fire). NyxFe 11:40, January 21, 2011 (UTC) Fixed SolarCenturion 23:39, January 21, 2011 (UTC) HELP! I cannot figure out how to insert an image properly when I created a new page. When I fill out the template box for Title, etc, I dutifuuly load up the pic but it never shows up. When I load it after the fact, it's not in the right place. What am I doing wrong? Page restructured Better front page? Feel free to add appropriate headings and such. And to make it prettier. Netherith 06:13, February 1, 2011 (UTC) :Can we change the background color of the area where many of the links to pages are. Where it lists the Player, Combat, World, Duties, Deeds, and technical. I'm having a hard time reading the page links there ^^;; RayneShock 01:04, February 12, 2011 (UTC) ::The general color scheme is in need of real work; currently, conflicting colors throughout the project make browsing the site difficult and hard on the eyes. A more polished scheme is probably needed, and it would probably be best to get away from the colors of the official site a bit, thereby creating a unique web presence. Personally, I'd like to see a lighter color utilized for the text area, maybe even white or a basic texture; dark gaming wiki are overdone, and such a look doesn't really fit for a supers title. -- Heaven's Agent 01:18, February 12, 2011 (UTC) :::This design was totally taken from dcuosource's wiki... ::::Not really; if you look at both projects' histories you'll see the format was adopted here first. But the design certainly wasn't new even then. It's a common format used across many wiki projects. It's clean, communicates information effectively, and is pleasing to the eye. That's why it's adopted by such a wide variety of wiki communities. That being the case, there is a lot to be said of trying to establish a unique presence through differentiation. Perhaps we should consider alternatives. -- Heaven's Agent 03:34, February 13, 2011 (UTC) :::::Feel free. This so far has been the only effective layout I can find. I still have to find an effective way to display Featured Article and other fluff. Netherith 12:13, February 13, 2011 (UTC) Investigations/player briefs layout? I created pages for a few of the investigations today, with names, descriptions, images and map locations as I've found them in-game, and I noticed that there's a bit of inconcisency on the structure of the pages. Some of them include transcripts while others don't, and in the ones I've made I've added images of their map locations (which none of the others have, though they are all from alerts, and alerts don't have maps of their own). Perhaps some kind of official layout for these pages should be made? (I more or less copypasted the layout that I had seen used on some of the other investigation pages.) :The current layouts are not very friendly to those of us using the monobook skin, either. Too many parameters are hard-coded, failing to utilize the larger text area monobook offers. :I've begun work on rebuilding a briefing article, Briefs: Area 51, from the ground up with an eye to accommodating both the monobook and Wikia skins. It's currently a work in progress, but should be finished in short order. Any input is appreciated. -- Heaven's Agent 01:22, February 12, 2011 (UTC) ::Compared to the current setup on most, that one there is definitely a much better way of doing it. Cinlok 17:39, February 12, 2011 (UTC) :::Heaven's Agent's structure is a lot better. Recommend using that as the default structure for Briefings and Investigations. Netherith 12:11, February 13, 2011 (UTC) Too many categories? I have noticed that it seems like a lot of unnecessary categories have been added as of late, that are going to make navigating the wiki overly complicated. For example we don't need individual categories for missions based on levels, when simply seperating them into hero/villian will suffice. After all there is only one level one mission in the game, that does not require it to get a seperate category. Also listing Brainiac Sentry under a category for Brainiac Mobs, and Brainiac is redundant, as simply listing them as "enforcement" Troops worked just fine. We need to seriously slim down the number of categories to just the revelant larger groups, and focus more on including as much info as possible in the actual articles themselves. Espically in the case of the missions. Iamdoug 18:18, February 15, 2011 (UTC)iamdoug :Categories are a method of navigating wiki content. I began adding categories for missions by level, for example, because it's reasonable to expect someone coming to this project to want to find all the missions of a given level in the game. I know I'm not the only person to ever do that, and there's not really any other way to accomplish this without a category for each level. I created the new category, Category:Brainiac, to group all articles pertaining to the villain in one place; if someone wants just information on the character and his forces, that's the category they should look for. I began subarticles such as Category:Brainiac/Mobs to further sort that content. :You say these categories are unnecessary, but I ask you, what are categories for? I've always seen them as tools for grouping like content, for situations when someone may want to find information on a subject but perhaps are unsure what an article containing such content would be named. If categories are not organized in a manner that they can be navigated and utilized to find specific information, why include them at all? -- Heaven's Agent 18:33, February 15, 2011 (UTC) ::Categories should only be for the most broadest of topics, I.E. in the case of missions, if you are looking for a mission of a specific level, you should be able to go to the mission page click on hero/villian, and then have the missions listed on that page by level that way two clicks and you are done instead of having to go the mission page, choosing hero or villian, choosing the level you want then choosing the mission you want. It is better to keep categories broad and include more info on the individual pages, that will make navigating to things easier and avoid redundancy. You have the starter mission listed in six different categories that all include only it, that is redundant and a waste of space. You can just as easily include it on just the hero/villian mission pages and be done with it. Same with mobs, one page that lists all the mobs seperated by mission lines/end bosses would be easier to navigate then having several different category pages for each grouping of mobs. You ask why categories should be included at all, and I am simply saying they should just be to link large groups of similarities (missions, items, characters etc.) and individual pages that link to the info should be used for navigation purposes. It will streamline navigation and make it so you have to click between less pages to find the info you need, as well as reducing the number of categories containing what is essentially duplicate information. Iamdoug 18:57, February 15, 2011 (UTC)iamdoug :::But if you leave categories large and generic, without sorting their content, they become impossible to navigate and lose any purpose. The same thing occurs when an article gets too big. Once again, what point is there in having categories if this is our aproach? :::My primary method of navigating a wiki has always been via category structure; it's just how my brain works, and I quickly become lost if I try to navigate a wiki's content through the articles. I've known many others that embrace the same process. Others do not. Article-primary navigation alone would streamline things for some, but not all, and could easily make things more difficult in some instances. We should attempt to make this project's content as readily available to as many different people as possible. Sure, it becomes somewhat redundant, but if it means we cover more bases I say it's worthwhile. -- Heaven's Agent 19:18, February 15, 2011 (UTC)